I've noticed that what I consider to be a really bad habit has been spreading lately.
It seems that quite a few folks have gotten into the habit of using the word "apologist" as a derogotary term. This started out back in the early spring with the moonbats who kept pushing the "Bush AWOL" and/or "Halliburton runs everything" sort of foolishness. They insisted on calling anyone who defended Bush an apologist, as opposed to "supporter" or "defender."
Here's the thing: now Bush supporters are calling Kerry supporters the same damned thing in reverse! So we have "Kerry apologists," whose chief offense seems to be defending their chosen candidate. Certainly it's their right, as American citizens, to do so, no?
Now don't get me wrong; I intend to vote for Bush this fall, and I certainly believe that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have at least some legitimate claims.
My question is this: just what is your overall objective? If you want to preach to the choir, bash the other side as a bunch of clueless idiots, and pile on the latest "gotcha," knock yourself out, it's your dime, amigo.
But. if you are in the slightest bit interested in actually threshing out some of the issues, and maybe even opening up someone on the opposing side to a new interpretation (even if you don't change their mind), then I humbly suggest that you may want to consider not using the word "apologist."
Not too long ago, my friend Dean Esmay asked conservatives to take a pledge that they would faithfull support Kerry should the Senator from Massachusetts win the presidency this fall. My goal is more modest.
Right now I'm asking Bush supporters to refrain from using condescending, hot-button/buzzwords such as "apologist," even if their opponents won't.
After all, it won't hurt us to show them respect, which any adult citizen is reasonably entitled to expect; and if they refuse to return the favor, the onus is theirs, not ours.
So, what do you say?